<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM CHAPTER 3 'INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY'</TITLE>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="k.css"></HEAD><BODY>
<TABLE align=center border=0 width=450><TR><TD align=center height=80><br>
<FONT size=5 color=black><B>THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM CHAPTER 3 'INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY'</B></FONT><br><br><br><DIV class='PP2'>THE PROBLEM THAT confronts most of us is whether the individual is merely the instrument of society or the end of society.  Are you and I as individuals to be used, directed, educated, controlled, shaped to a certain pattern by society and government; or does society, the State, exist for the individual?  Is the individual the end of society; or is he merely a puppet to be taught, exploited, butchered as an instrument of war?  That is the problem that is confronting most of us.  That is the problem of the world; whether the individual is a mere instrument of society, a plaything of influences to be moulded; or whether society exists for the individual.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
How are you going to find this out?  It is a serious problem, isn't it?  If the individual is merely an instrument of society, then society is much more important than the individual.  If that is true, then we must give up individuality and work for society; our whole educational system must be entirely revolutionized and the individual turned into an instrument to be used and destroyed, liquidated, got rid of but if society exists for the individual, then the function of society is not to make him conform to any pattern but to give him the feel, the urge of freedom.  So we have to find out which is false.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
How would you inquire into this problem?  It is a vital problem, isn't it?  It is not dependent on any ideology, either of the left or of the right; and if it is dependent on an ideology, then it is merely a matter of opinion.  Ideas always breed enmity, confusion, conflict.  If you depend on books of the left or of the right or on sacred books, then you depend on mere opinion, whether of Buddha, of Christ, of capitalism, communism or what you will.  They are ideas, not truth.  A fact can never be denied.  Opinion about fact can be denied.  If we can discover what the truth of the matter is, we shall be able to act independently of opinion.  Is it not, therefore, necessary to discard what others have said?  The opinion of the leftist or other leaders is the outcome of their conditioning, so if you depend for your discovery on what is found in books, you are merely bound by opinion.  It is not a matter of knowledge.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
How is one to discover the truth of this?  On that we will act. To find the truth of this, there must be freedom from all propaganda, which means you are capable of looking at the problem independently of opinion.  The whole task of education is to awaken the individual. To see the truth of this, you will have to be very clear, which means you cannot depend on a leader.  When you choose a leader you do so out of confusion, and so your leaders are also confused, and that is what is happening in the world.  Therefore you cannot look to your leader for guidance or help.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A mind that wishes to understand a problem must not only understand the problem completely, wholly, but must be able to follow it swiftly, because the problem is never static.  The problem is always new, whether it is a problem of starvation, a psychological problem, or any problem.  Any crisis is always new; therefore, to understand it, a mind must always be fresh, clear, swift in its pursuit.  I think most of us realize the urgency of an inward revolution, which alone can bring about a radical transformation of the outer, of society.  This is the problem with which I myself and all seriously-intentioned people are occupied.  How to bring about a fundamental, a radical transformation in society, is our problem; and this transformation of the outer cannot take place without inner revolution.  Since society is always static, any action, any reform which is accomplished without this inward revolution becomes equally static; so there is no hope without this constant inward revolution, because, without it, outer action becomes repetitive, habitual.  The action of relationship between you and another, between you and me, is society; and that society becomes static, it has no life-giving quality, so long as there is not this constant inward revolution, a creative, psychological transformation; and it is because there is not this constant inward revolution that society is always becoming static, crystallized, and has therefore constantly to be broken up.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
What is the relationship between yourself and the misery, the confusion, in and around you?  Surely this confusion, this misery, did not come into being by itself.  You and I have created it, not a capitalist nor a communist nor a fascist society, but you and I have created it in our relationship with each other.  What you are within has been projected without, on to the world; what you are, what you think and what you feel, what you do in your everyday existence, is projected outwardly, and that constitutes the world.  If we are miserable, confused, chaotic within, by projection that becomes the world, that becomes society, because the relationship between yourself and myself between myself and another is society - society is the product of our relationship - and if our relationship is confused, egocentric, narrow, limited, national, we project that and bring chaos into the world.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
What you are, the world is.  So your problem is the world's problem.  Surely, this is a simple and basic fact, is it not?  In our relationship with the one or the many we seem somehow to overlook this point all the time.  We want to bring about alteration through a system or through a revolution in ideas or values based on a system, forgetting that it is you and I who create society, who bring about confusion or order by the way in which we live.  So we must begin near, that is we must concern ourselves with our daily existence, with our daily thoughts and feelings and actions which are revealed in the manner of earning our livelihood and in our relationship with ideas or beliefs.  This is our daily existence, is it not?  We are concerned with livelihood, getting jobs, earning money; we are concerned with the relationship with our family or with our neighbours, and we are concerned with ideas and with beliefs.  Now, if you examine our occupation, it is fundamentally based on envy, it is not just a means of earning a livelihood.  Society is so constructed that it is a process of constant conflict, constant becoming; it is based on greed, on envy, envy of your superior; the clerk wanting to become the manager, which shows that he is not just concerned with earning a livelihood, a means of subsistence, but with acquiring position and prestige.  This attitude naturally creates havoc in society, in relationship, but if you and I were only concerned with livelihood we should find out the right means of earning it, a means not based on envy.  Envy is one of the most destructive factors in relationship because envy indicates the desire for power, for position, and it ultimately leads to politics; both are closely related.  The clerk, when he seeks to become a manager, becomes a factor in the creation of power-politics which produce war; so he is directly responsible for war.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
What is our relationship based on ? The relationship between yourself and myself, between yourself and another - which is society - what is it based on?  Surely not on love, though we talk about it.  It is not based on love, because if there were love there would be order, there would be peace, happiness between you and me. But in that relationship between you and me there is a great deal of ill will which assumes the form of respect.  If we were both equal in thought, in feeling, there would be no respect, there would be no ill will, because we would be two individuals meeting, not as disciple and teacher, nor as the husband dominating the wife, nor as the wife dominating the husband.  When there is ill will there is a desire to dominate which arouses jealousy, anger, passion, all of which in our relationship creates constant conflict from which we try to escape, and this produces further chaos, further misery.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now as regards ideas which are part of our daily existence, beliefs and formulations, are they not distorting our minds?  For what is stupidity?  Stupidity is the giving of wrong values to those things which the mind creates, or to those things which the hands produce.  Most of our thoughts spring from the self-protective instinct, do they not?  Our ideas, oh, so many of them, do they not receive the wrong significance, one which they have not in themselves?  Therefore when we believe in any form, whether religious, economic or social, when we believe in God, in ideas, in a social system which separates man from man, in nationalism and so on, surely we are giving a wrong significance to belief which indicates stupidity, for belief divides people, doesn't unite people.  So we see that by the way we live we can produce order or chaos, peace or conflict, happiness or misery.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So our problem, is it not?, is whether there can be a society which is static, and at the same time an individual in whom this constant revolution is taking place.  That is, revolution in society must begin with the inner, psychological transformation of the individual.  Most of us want to see a radical transformation in the social structure.  That is the whole battle that is going on in the world - to bring about a social revolution through communistic or any other means.  Now if there is a social revolution, that is an action with regard to the outer structure of man, however radical that social revolution may be its very nature is static if there is no inward revolution of the individual, no psychological transformation. Therefore to bring about a society that is not repetitive, nor static, not disintegrating, a society that is constantly alive, it is imperative that there should be a revolution in the psychological structure of the individual, for without inward, psychological revolution, mere transformation of the outer has very little significance.  That is society is always becoming crystallized, static, and is therefore always disintegrating.  However much and however wisely legislation may be promulgated, society is always in the process of decay because revolution must take place within, not merely outwardly. I think it is important to understand this and not slur over it. Outward action, when accomplished, is over, is static; if the relationship between individuals, which is society, is not the outcome of inward revolution, then the social structure, being static, absorbs the individual and therefore makes him equally static, repetitive.  Realizing this, realizing the extraordinary significance of this fact, there can be no question of agreement or disagreement.  It is a fact that society is always crystallizing and absorbing the individual and that constant, creative revolution can only be in the individual, not in society, not in the outer.  That is creative revolution can take place only in individual relationship, which is society.  We see how the structure of the present society in India, in Europe, in America, in every part of the world, is rapidly disintegrating; and we know it within our own lives.  We can observe it as we go down the streets.  We do not need great historians to tell us the fact that our society is crumbling; and there must be new architects, new builders, to create a new society.  The structure must be built on a new foundation, on newly discovered facts and values.  Such architects do not yet exist.  There are no builders, none who, observing, becoming aware of the fact that the structure is collapsing, are transforming themselves into architects.  That is our problem.  We see society crumbling, disintegrating; and it is we, you and I, who have to be the architects.  You and I have to rediscover the values and build on a more fundamental, lasting foundation; because if we look to the professional architects, the political and religious builders, we shall be precisely in the same position as before.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Because you and I are not creative, we have reduced society to this chaos, so you and I have to be creative because the problem is urgent; you and I must be aware of the causes of the collapse of society and create a new structure based not on mere imitation but on our creative understanding.  Now this implies, does it not?, negative thinking.  Negative thinking is the highest form of understanding. That is in order to understand what is creative thinking, we must approach the problem negatively, because a positive approach to the problem - which is that you and I must become creative in order to build a new structure of society - will be imitative.  To understand that which is crumbling, we must investigate it, examine it negatively - not with a positive system, a positive formula, a positive conclusion.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Why is society crumbling, collapsing, as it surely is ? One of the fundamental reasons is that the individual, you, has ceased to be creative.  I will explain what I mean.  You and I have become imitative, we are copying, outwardly and inwardly.  Outwardly, when learning a technique, when communicating with each other on the verbal level, naturally there must be some imitation, copy.  I copy words.  To become an engineer, I must first learn the technique, then use the technique to build a bridge.  There must be a certain amount of imitation, copying, in outward technique, but when there is inward, psychological imitation surely we cease to be creative.  Our education, our social structure, our so-called religious life, are all based on imitation; that is I fit into a particular social or religious formula.  I have ceased to be a real individual; psychologically, I have become a mere repetitive machine with certain conditioned responses, whether those of the Hindu, the Christian, the Buddhist, the German or the Englishman.  Our responses are conditioned according to the pattern of society, whether it is eastern or western, religious or materialistic.  So one of the fundamental causes of the disintegration of society is imitation, and one of the disintegrating factors is the leader, whose very essence is imitation.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In order to understand the nature of disintegrating society is it not important to inquire whether you and I, the individual, can be creative?  We can see that when there is imitation there must be disintegration; when there is authority there must be copying.  And since our whole mental, psychological make-up is based on authority, there must be freedom from authority, to be creative.  Have you not noticed that in moments of creativeness, those rather happy moments of vital interest, there is no sense of repetition, no sense of copying?  Such moments are always new, fresh, creative, happy.  So we see that one of the fundamental causes of the disintegration of society is copying, which is the worship of authority. </DIV></TD></TR></TABLE></BODY></HTML>
